Iran Frees British Sailors

[royalfan5]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

The Iranians are calling it a gift. Oil prices are also down.

[Rhino]

What a bunch of nice chaps, I tell ya. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

Thank GOD they are ok.

Now we can get down to business.

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/stealth-bomber.jpg

[Hatfield]

how does iran taking british soldiers mean we need to bomb them again?

[Petro-Sooner]

Then take their oil. :texan:

[PAW]

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" (Awanntenabjob) asked of the British government.

Family values, heh. They treat their wimmins so well, ya' know.

[OklahomaTuba]

how does iran taking british soldiers mean we need to bomb them again?

Ok, how bout we bomb them for killing all those Marines in Lebanon, attacking our ally Israel with their terrorist group Hezbollah, killing our soldiers in Iraq like in Karbala and providing the Mahdi army with arms and IEDs, and trying to build nukes and threatening Israel and this country with them?

How bout that, is that enough for you, or do they need to kill more people first?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

how does iran taking british soldiers mean we need to bomb them again?See post #7, genius!

[Hatfield]

See post #7, genius!

post #7 wasn't written at the time of my post...you may think about loosening the straps on your helmet.

so tuba the answer to my question is it doesn't?

(as far as your laundry list of examples which aren't responsive to my question, i do agree with you on some of them)

[WILBURJIM]

how does iran taking british soldiers mean we need to bomb them again?
Again?

Holy cripe. Iran has gotten off scot free with 51 hostages kept against their will for 444 days. Killed 241 US marines in Beirut. Blew up our embassy in Beirut and Kuwait. Are the driving force behind Z-bollah that has killed Americans as well many Israelis, among them embassey staff in Beirut. Held others hostage in Beirut through their proxy Z-bollah. Blew up Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing 19 US soldiers. NO US RESPONSE.

AGAIN?

[Hatfield]

again, as in explain to me again; not again as in another time.

and i appreciate the history lesson on iranian/us atrocities, but i fail to see how their actions toward engrish sailors/marines dictates us bombing them at this juncture

[WILBURJIM]

again, as in explain to me again; not again as in another time.

and i appreciate the history lesson on iranian/us atrocities, but i fail to see how their actions toward engrish sailors/marines dictates us bombing them at this juncture

I knew what you meant. I just used your grammatical slip to make a point.

That point is: We have done nothing to Iran outside of some small naval battles in the 80s and the have done alot to us.

Now they want nukes, and I believe it is that quest that will eventually get them some bunker busters testing their hardened sites. Israel and the US do not want a nuclear Iran. Diplomacy so far has not gotten us very far.

15 sailors held captive, was a sideshow.

[Hatfield]

took this from another board:

This is a long read, from Stratfor, but gives a good look at what Iran's motivations were for the sailor grab (if you thought a simple trespassing arrest, you're not even close), and US/British response:

The British Detainees: Reading Diplomatic Signals
By George Friedman

Last week, Iranian forces captured 15 British sailors and marines in the Shatt al-Arab area, where the territorial distinction between Iraq and Iran is less than clear. The Iranians claimed the British personnel were in Iranian territory; the British denied it. The claims and counterclaims are less interesting than the fact that the Iranians clearly planned the capture: Whatever the British were doing in the area, the Iranians knew about it and had plans to do something in response. The questions are why, and why is this occurring now?

One explanation is that the British were on some sort of mission that the Iranians had to stop. A rumor circulating is that the British were involved in extracting an Iranian defector, and the Iranians were moving to block the defection. That's a possibility, but then the captured Britons hardly appeared to be operating as a covert team -- and if there was a defection under way, the secret had been blown a long time before, since the Iranians were able to amass the force used in the capture.

It seems to us that the capture of the British had less to do with any particular operation than with a more general desire on the part of the Iranians to capture the personnel and thereby create an international incident. The important issue, therefore, is why they wanted an incident, and why this particular sort.

By now, it is no secret that the Americans and Iranians are engaged in a complex negotiation that is focused on Iraq, but which also involves Iran's future nuclear capability. U.S. and Iranian officials met publicly in early March, and a further meeting is scheduled, but the most important discussions have taken place in private venues. It also is clear that there is a debate within Tehran, as well as within Washington, as to whether these talks should be going on, how the negotiations should be carried out and the role of force in the negotiations. We suspect that the capture of the British detainees had something to do with the U.S. negotiations and with internal Iranian politics.

At this point, both sides in the negotiations are trying to impress upon each other not only that they retain some options, but also that their moves cannot be easily predicted. Both want to be seen as retaining the option of surprise. The capture of the British personnel, then, should be read not so much as the trigger for an international crisis as a diplomatic signal. If either the Americans or the Iranians believed it were possible to achieve their own ideal outcomes in negotiations, either the capture or the U.S. military surge into Iraq would not have come about. The game for each now is an effort to secure an outcome that can be lived with -- not an outright victory.

U.S. Signals and Limitations

The U.S. approach to the negotiations with Iran has been multifaceted.


First, by talking simultaneously with the Sunni insurgents, the Americans clearly have been letting the Iranians know that they have not been trapped into dealing only with the Iranians or Iraqi Shia when it comes to the future of Iraq.


Second, Washington has tried to keep the Iranian nuclear issue separate from the Iraq issue. Given that none of the world's great powers truly has an interest in seeing Iran get the bomb, Washington has international backing on some aspects of the Iran nuclear issue -- and does not want that confused with the question of Iraq, where support for its position is much weaker. Washington does not want to provide the Iranians with linkage between the issues; rather, it wants to maintain its ability to extract concessions over Iraq in exchange for concessions on the nuclear issue.


Third, and most important, the U.S. leadership consistently has emphasized that it has no fear of Iran and is not constrained politically or militarily. The entire objective of the U.S. surge strategy was to demonstrate that the administration retains military options in Iraq and is capable of using them. At the same time, the United States has carefully orchestrated a campaign to let the Iranians believe that it retains military options against Iran as well -- and is considering using them. The exercises by two U.S. carrier battle groups last week had been planned for quite a while and were designed to give the Iranians pause.


Finally, the United States has moved to arrest Iranian officials who had been operating quasi-diplomatic entities in Iraq. (The Iranians said they were diplomatic and the Americans said they weren't, so we will term them "quasi.")


Rumors of imminent U.S. military action against Iran have swept the region. Totally uninformed sources around the world have been speculating for weeks about the possibility of unspecified U.S. action. The rumors suited the Bush administration perfectly. The administration wanted the Iranians to feel endangered, so as to shape the Iranian negotiating process. This has certainly been the case amid congressional action to set a deadline for a withdrawal from Iraq. If the Americans are going to withdraw, then Iran has no motivation to negotiate; it need only wait. The administration played off the congressional proposals to hint that the possibility of a forced deadline increases the pressure for the president to act quickly, rather than to wait.

The problem for the United States, however, is the issue of what sort of action it actually can take. It is in no position to undertake a ground invasion of Iran. Iran is a big country, and occupying it is beyond the capability of any force the United States could field -- at least, not without a massive increase of ground forces that would take several years to achieve, and that certainly is not under way at the moment.

The other option is an air campaign. And it is not clear that an air campaign would work. The example of Israel's failure in Lebanon last summer weighs heavily. The Israelis chose the air campaign option and failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome. The U.S. Army historically has seen the air campaign as useful only if it is followed by an effective occupation. The most successful air campaign, Desert Storm, worked in a much smaller battle-box than Iran, and was followed up by a multidivisional ground force in order to defeat the defending Iraqi force and occupy the territory. In Iran, the quantity of air power needed for an outcome similar to that in Kuwait in 1991 is substantially greater than the United States has available, and as we have said, there is no follow-on ground force capable of occupying Iran.

The Iranian Signals

The Iranians, like the Americans, also have found it necessary to demonstrate a lack of intimidation. And for Iran, capturing 15 British sailors and marines was an excellent device. First, it raised the specter in the United States of another Iranian hostage crisis, reminding Bush of how the Iranians handled Jimmy Carter in 1979. Second, it showed that Iran is not concerned about possible retaliation by either the United States or the United Kingdom -- which has no options independent of the United States and is not driving negotiations over Iraq. Finally, the fact that action was directed against the British, rather than the Americans, slightly deflected the intensity of the crisis; because Americans were not taken captive, there was less pressure for the United States to do something about it.

But there is another dimension to this. The Iranians have shifted the spotlight away from Baghdad and to the southern region of Iraq -- to the area dominated by Shia and held by the British. The capture of the British personnel coincided with some fighting in the Basra area among Shiite militias.

In this way, the Iranians have sent two signals.

The first was that while the United States is concentrating its forces in Baghdad and Anbar province, Iran remains perfectly capable of whipping up a crisis in the relatively quiet south -- where U.S. troops are not present and where the British, who already have established a timeline for withdrawal, might not have sufficient force to contain a crisis. If the United States had to inject forces into the south at this point, they would have to come from other regions of Iraq or from the already strained reserve forces in the United States. The Iranians are indicating that they can create some serious political and military problems for the United States if Washington becomes aggressive.

[Widescreen]

The Iranian regime wants us dead now and after they have nukes. After they have nukes, they'll be a lot harder to deal with (see N. Korea).

[SicEmBaylor]

First, Iran is the primary sponsor of hezzbolah but then again the EU sure as hell gives them a lot of money as well (including money to Hamas I believe), are we going to bomb the European Union as well?

Second, What do you suppose the British reaction would be to bombing Iran as a result of their hostage standoff that was resolved diplomatically? Do you think they'd rush to our aide given that this was a problem between themselves and Iran and was a matter settled peacefully?

If any armed conflict were to come from this thing it should have come from the initial moment that the British sailors were taken captive. My God, I'd have sunk every g-damned vessel in their navy before I'd let them take one American sailor back to Tehran.

[MamaMia]

So, do the Brits have to return the stolen cars? ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

post #7 wasn't written at the time of my post...you may think about loosening the straps on your helmet.

so tuba the answer to my question is it doesn't?

(as far as your laundry list of examples which aren't responsive to my question, i do agree with you on some of them)How much strain on your brain would have had to take place to remember the issues pointed out in post #7 on your own, without having to jerk that knee and chew that rug, as you did in post #4

[C&CDean]

Hatfield,

WTF? Seriously, WTF? Do you really care what the Iranians are saying about why they took the Brits? I sure as hell don't. **** em'. Right in their camel-humping, rag-head wearing, allah-worshipping, murdering asses. **** em' all straight to hell. We should bomb them because they ****ing deserve it. That, you cannot deny. Well, you can (and you will because you're lily-livered) but it simply doesn't matter any more.

Eventually, those **********s are going to get what they're begging for. And allah will be pleased to welcome all his pilgrims up to the big house. He better start a virgin-search though, cause there ain't that many virgins left in the world.

[Vaevictis]

how does iran taking british soldiers mean we need to bomb them again?

Well, technically speaking, if the Brits can make a plausible case that their solders weren't in Iranian territory, then taking the soldiers is an act of war, and Britain has all the pretense they need to open a can of whoop ***.

And given that Britain is a NATO ally, if Britain wanted to, I suspect they could call on that to obligate us to join in on any actions they took against Iran in reprisal.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hatfield,



Eventually, those **********s are going to get what they're begging for. And allah will be pleased to welcome all his pilgrims up to the big house. He better start a virgin-search though, cause there ain't that many virgins left in the world. I just always imagined there was an unending supply of virgins that allah supplied to the martyrs, since allah is imnipotent, no? Doesn't that make him? even better than Harry Houdini?

[SoonerProphet]

That point is: We have done nothing to Iran outside of some small naval battles in the 80s and the have done alot to us.

Not trying to defend the Persian, but this is a bit off the mark.

Chemical weapons, financial support, and military support during its conflict with Iraq. 1988 shootdown of civilian jetliner cruising for the hajj. Support of the Shah. Mossedegh and 1953 coup that insert Peacocks to throne. Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

Just off the top of my head.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

[Hatfield]

Hatfield,

WTF? Seriously, WTF? Do you really care what the Iranians are saying about why they took the Brits? I sure as hell don't. **** em'. Right in their camel-humping, rag-head wearing, allah-worshipping, murdering asses. **** em' all straight to hell. We should bomb them because they ****ing deserve it. That, you cannot deny. Well, you can (and you will because you're lily-livered) but it simply doesn't matter any more.

Eventually, those **********s are going to get what they're begging for. And allah will be pleased to welcome all his pilgrims up to the big house. He better start a virgin-search though, cause there ain't that many virgins left in the world.

no i don't care what they do to the brits, nor do i want us bombing them unilaterally without the request of us coming to the aid of britton in any assualt they make if properly requested.

really all i was getting at....p.s. shouldn't you be at pad thai

[Mjcpr]

I just always imagined there was an unending supply of virgins that allah supplied to the martyrs, since allah is imnipotent, no? Doesn't that make him? even better than Harry Houdini?

Imnipotent? Isn't that a type of surgery?

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I thought it was tea.

[Vaevictis]

And given that Britain is a NATO ally, if Britain wanted to, I suspect they could call on that to obligate us to join in on any actions they took against Iran in reprisal.

And actually, come to think of it, the French too.

Who among you wouldn't want to see the Brits call on NATO to respond, and see the French try to talk their way out of it?

[SicEmBaylor]

And actually, come to think of it, the French too.

Who among you wouldn't want to see the Brits call on NATO to respond, and see the French try to talk their way out of it?

France isn't a member of NATO.
Well, I don't think they are. They come and go from the alliance when it suits them. I think right now they're out.

[TUSooner]

how does iran taking british soldiers mean we need to bomb them again?
Because Senator Jesus (R-Universe) says so (according to Tuba). Any more silly questions?




I do think we ought to take out a couple of their patrol boats, "pour encourager les autres."

[SicEmBaylor]

Correction, apparently they're back in NATO at the moment.

[jk the sooner fan]

what dean said

[Vaevictis]

Correction, apparently they're back in NATO at the moment.

IIRC, France has always been a political member of NATO, they've just not always been integrated militarily.

(ie, they've still got the same obligations of other members, they've just objected to placing French forces under NATO command -- which is rather like some folks here in the US objecting to US forces being put under UN command, yes?)

[picasso]

Hatfield, get a clue man.

Iran did this because they knew they could, and to embarrass Great Britain.

It's pretty obvious why they didn't try this move with our country.

[Scott D]

Ok, how bout we bomb them for killing all those Marines in Lebanon, attacking our ally Israel with their terrorist group Hezbollah, killing our soldiers in Iraq like in Karbala and providing the Mahdi army with arms and IEDs, and trying to build nukes and threatening Israel and this country with them?

How bout that, is that enough for you, or do they need to kill more people first?

I think they should kill more people myself...maybe point them towards India.

[MamaMia]

I can hardly wait to see what the Brit hostages have to say about being exploited while they were held captive.

[royalfan5]

I can hardly wait to see what the Brit hostages have to say about being exploited while they were held captive.
They may have Stockholm Syndrome and love the Persians.

[OklahomaTuba]

Not trying to defend the Persian, but this is a bit off the mark.

Chemical weapons, financial support, and military support during its conflict with Iraq. 1988 shootdown of civilian jetliner cruising for the hajj.

Of course, the cold war and Iran's own aggressiveness towards us in the past never had anything whatsoever to do with any of those things you mentioned.

If Iran was simply a peace living dictatorship, instead of a paradise for terrorist and kidnappers, then maybe none of that would ever have happened.

[SoonerProphet]

Of course, the cold war and Iran's own aggressiveness towards us in the past never had anything whatsoever to do with any of those things you mentioned.

If Iran was simply a peace living dictatorship, instead of a paradise for terrorist and kidnappers, then maybe none of that would ever have happened.

Not sure how supporting Iraq has anything to do with the Cold War. If any state would come close to colluding with the Soviets it would have been the socialist Ba'athist of Iraq...not Islamic theocrats in Iran. Might have something to do with keeping a regional balance of power...I can get along with that theory over goofy Cold War angles.

Before 79 the English and the ourselves often interjected our noses in their affairs. See AIOC, which controlled Persian politics long before the start of the Cold War.

[OklahomaTuba]

If any state would come close to colluding with the Soviets it would have been the socialist Ba'athist of Iraq...not Islamic theocrats in Iran.
Exactly my point.

If we didn't support Saddam, Soviet Russia would have. They were the power of the region, and they were the threat to the Kingdom.

If USSR had influence over all that oil, it would probably still be around (which it basically is anyway).

We made mistakes, but in no way does it excuse Iran for the **** they and their version of the SS (Hezbollah) have pulled the last 30 years. Once they have a nuke, its all over but the crying IMO.

Good thing we are cutting the funds for troops and retreating, huh?

[SoonerProphet]

Exactly my point.

If we didn't support Saddam, Soviet Russia would have.

Umm, weren't most of the tanks and armored vehicles cooked off in 91 & 03 T-72's and BMPs? Didn't most of the Arab states purchase Soviet equipment, yet reject Soviet for. pol.? Explain to me again how this was a Cold War issue, I must be missing your exact point here.


They were the power of the region, and they were the threat to the Kingdom.

As we have seen, most Arab militaries are only a threat to themselves.


If USSR had influence over all that oil, it would probably still be around (which it basically is anyway).

Yeah, cause that petrol sure would have ended all the other economic shortages in their command economy. Pretty silly to think they'd be around today...they were pretty damn luck to get 70 years, imo.

[WILBURJIM]

Not trying to defend the Persian, but this is a bit off the mark.

Chemical weapons, financial support, and military support during its conflict with Iraq. 1988 shootdown of civilian jetliner cruising for the hajj. Support of the Shah. Mossedegh and 1953 coup that insert Peacocks to throne. Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

Just off the top of my head.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
I stand by my point.
Operation Ajax was 26 years before the Islamic revolution. There are other things we did for the shah I am sure but, nothing, not even close to comparing to the amount of people Khomeini killed in his first year as supreme religious leader. People that helped overthrow the shah, leftists, not part of the majlis, killed because why? They were no longer needed. Many Iranians blame the US for their failures, that is part of their problem. 1979 was a long time ago. But since the revolution, we have done little to combat what they have done to us. The airliner tradgedy was an accident. We as a nation have not answered the terrorist acts they have fomented these last 25-30 years. It is about time we do. Bin Laden even makes comment about our leaving Beirut after the barracks bombing as proof, we don't have the will to fight.

[MamaMia]

They may have Stockholm Syndrome and love the Persians.
You mean like Patty Hearst syndrome?

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Ummmmm could somebody explain that thingy part to me again about all the watchamicalit somethin' or other good reasons we have for not nuking the crap out of them?

No. You misunderstood.

I said "good" reasons.

[soonerscuba]

Ummmmm could somebody explain that thingy part to me again about all the watchamicalit somethin' or other good reasons we have for not nuking the crap out of them?

No. You misunderstood.

I said "good" reasons.

They're brown?

[SicEmBaylor]

They're brown?
The persian rug lobby in the US is VERY VERY strong.

[Sooner_Bob]

The persian rug lobby in the US is VERY VERY strong.


I thought it was all of those flying carpet racing circuits.

[C&CDean]

They're brown?

Typical. Ignorant. Liberal. Response.

No punkin, because they're filthy, low-down, terrorizing, murdering **********s who just happen to be brown. We'd feel the same way if they were pink or yellow too. Get with the ****ing program huh?

[soonerscuba]

Typical. Ignorant. Liberal. Response.

No punkin, because they're filthy, low-down, terrorizing, murdering **********s who just happen to be brown. We'd feel the same way if they were pink or yellow too. Get with the ****ing program huh?

joke. i thought it was over the top enough to not need a ;) . i was wrong.

[C&CDean]

joke. i thought it was over the top enough to not need a ;) . i was wrong.

Yeah sure. What. Ever.

When you spend your life crying "brown" don't get stupid when somebody calls you on it.

[Scott D]

technically Persians aren't brown...they are more of an off peach.